A federal judge has denied X (formerly Twitter) is trying to temporarily stop a California law that forces social media platforms to reveal their strategies for moderating harmful content.
Passed last year, AB 587 requires large social media companies to share descriptions of how they moderate content that contains hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference. In a complaint filed in September, X argued that the law violates the First Amendment right to free speech.
The company formerly known as Twitter did not present its case. U.S. District Judge William Shubb denied X's request for a preliminary injunction. “While the reporting requirement appears to impose a substantial compliance burden on social media companies, it does not appear that the requirement is unjustified or unduly burdensome in the context of First Amendment law,” Shubb writes in his decision. issued yesterday.
“The required disclosures are also not controversial.”
X did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The edge, responding with an email saying, “Busy now, check back later.” The company's complaint against AB 587 said it is “difficult to reliably define” what constitutes hate speech, disinformation and political interference. He also alleged that AB 587 would force social media platforms to “'remove' certain constitutionally protected content.”
Shubb, on the other hand, found that the information AB 587 requires companies to submit to the Attorney General twice a year is pretty straightforward. “The reports required by AB 587 are purely factual. The reporting requirement simply requires social media companies to identify their existing content moderation policies, if any, related to the specified categories,” his decision reads. “The required disclosures are also not controversial. The mere fact that the reports may be 'linked in some way to a controversial issue' does not make the reports themselves controversial.”
